Socialist Group, European Parliament 1/1980

Women socialists in the European Parliament

They achieve: an ad hoc

They speak out on: C C Hunger in the world

committee on women's rights

~19::-:80-::-:B-:-:-u_d.::!..ge_t ---------~ ~ Energy _E_nv_ir_o_nm_e_n_t,=-t_ra_n...,!sp_o_rt __ ,..--_____ ;. ~ ~ v .I ,I They ask questions

J ________ ,

They achieve: an ad hoc committee on women's rights

On the initiative of the Socialist Group, the European Parliament has set up an ad hoc committee on women's rights. Ernest Glinne, chairman of the Socialist Group, tabled a motion for a resolution countersigned by all the women members of the Socialist Group and other groups and proposing the creation of this committee. The purpose was to prepare for a parliamentary debate to make it possible to define steps to be taken on the basis of the Treaties of Rome in relation to problems concerning women. len van den Heuvel (Dutch socialist), vice-chairman of the Socialist Group, presented this motion for a resolution in the plenary sitting.

Yvette Roudy (French socialist) will be the chairman of this committee which was set up in December 1979. The socialist members of the committee are as follows : Mr Derek Enright (UK), Mr Mauro Ferri (It), Mrs Yvette Feuillet (F), Mrs Mette Groes (Dk), Mrs len van den Heuvel (NL), Mrs Magdalene Hoff (D), Mrs Anne-Marie Lizin (B), Mrs Heidi Wieczorek-Zeul (D). Substitutes: Mr Erdman Linde (D), Mrs Heinke Salisch (D), Mrs Beate Weber (D), Mrs Fran~oise Gaspard (F), Mrs Marie-Claude Vayssade (F), Mrs Annie Krouwei-VIam (NL), Mr Richard Balfe (UK) and Mr Ernest Glinne (B).

For Yvette Roudy, the creation of this committee confirms the innovative spirit prevailing among the Members of the new Assembly. It is necessary not only to defend what has been achieved, but also to reinitiate, with a greater sense of purpose, action undertaken, at a time when the advisability of women working is being called into question by some people. This committee is intended in principle to operate for six months, but Yvette Roudy already considers there is reason to reconsider this principle in view of the workload.

2

Yvette Roudy (F) Chairman of the ad hoc Committee on Women's rights.

Speech by len van den Heuvel (NL) (26.10.1979):

' The problem of women's rights is not separate from other political problems, but .... '

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, -those of you who are still here -the principle of equal rights for men and women is endorsed by every person in this Chamber. But the application of this principle in our countries leaves something to be desired. However united we may be about this principle, when it comes to considering how we can put an end to existing inequalities, opinions start to differ very quickly.

The Socialist Group has had detailed discussions on the setting up of an ad hoc committee on women's rights which is advocated in this motion for a resolution. In our discussion, it was emphasized that the ever-present danger of isolating 'women's affairs' from all other political questions must definitely be avoided. Furthermore, it was stated that Parliament must be on its guard against what has occurred so frequently in the past, namely that the existence of a body dealing specifically with subjects relating to women is used by others as an alibi, so that they themselves no longer have to consider these problems. As Socialists in this European Parliament we do not want this to happen.

What do we want then ? We want a full plenary sitting of this Parliament to debate the unacceptable injustices to which women are still subjected. There are still persistent injustices. One only has to remember how the directives laid down by the European Communities are in fact implemented in theory but not in practice.

Parliament must debate these questions thoroughly, and that debate must be well prepared. A plan must be drawn up so that, hopefully in the not too far distant future, this inequality can gradually be demolished and replaced by jusjice. The ad hoc committee must also make use of what has already been done by the European Communities in this field. The Socialist Group is pinning its hopes for the future on all existing parliamentary committees and not least on the bureau for women's affairs of the European Commission. During the coming budget debate we shall be advocating that this should be strengthened. We consider that our intentions are clearly expressed in this motion for a resolution which has been tabled with the support of numerous Members. However, two amendments have been tabled to this resolution. We find the first amendment by Lady Elles and others absolutely unacceptable, as it rejects the ad floc committee which we think desirable. The second amendment by Mrs Maij-Weggen and others has been studied carefully. We cannot agree with that one either in its present form. This is mainly because there is a risk that the work, which we think the ad hoc committee should be tackling as quickly as possible, would be seriously impeded by having to wait for a report on basic principles from the Commission. If- and we are prepared to accept this -the term of the ad hoc committee is to be limited beforehand to the beginning of this summer recess, then it must be able to begin its activities immediately. If the Christian-Democratic Group were prepared to alter their amendment such that there was no need to wait for the basic report and there was reference to collaboration with the European Commission our group would be able to agree to this amendment. There must be an ad hoc committee on women's rights, and there must be one as quickly as possible. I would make an urgent appeal to my colleagues to support the motion for a resolution tabled by Mr Glinne and others.

3

Hunger in the world

On the initiative of several political groups, particularly the Socialist Group which tabled a motion for a resolution on the subject, the European Parliament held a wide-ranging debate on hunger in the world, on the basis of a resolution submitted by the Committee on Development and Cooperation. For many Members this debate was a first step leading to proposals from the European Parliament for practical measures in connection with food aid, financial and technical aid for agrictJ/ture and security of food supplies throughout the world.

The women socialists showed a particular interest in this subject.

'Hunger in the world is not inevitable.'

Why has the Committee on External Economic Relations taken up this problem, and why have we drafted an opinion and tabled amendments? Quite simply, ladies and gentlemen, because the problem of hunger in the world and the number of those dying of starvation are so appalling that we felt that we who are responsible for matters relating to the European Community's external trade and external economic relations had a moral and political duty to state our opinion and bring this vital question before the whole House.

The documents you have before you and the opinion of the Committee on External Economic Relations repeat the dreadful figures. In 1979, the year the United Nations has declared the Year of the Child, 17 million children in the countries of the Third World will die before our eyes. How can we bear to sit here doing nothing ? Why is it that the press and the peoples of the European Community do not cry out in abhorrence at the terrible fate of these 17 million chitdren ? How can we call Europe civilized when we simply ignore the death and suffering of millions outside our own continent and simply move on to the next inconsuquential item on our introverted political agenda ? This is an intolerable situation, and - and this is my own personal opinion - many young people find it incomprehensible that we should be spending 2 000 million OM on armaments while at the same time tolerating all this suffering in the countries of the Third World.

The Committee on External Economic Relations therefore feels that it is up to the European Parliament to appeal to the consciences of people throughout the world so that we get some action, rather than just more resolutions. If we fail to take action in time, over 700 million people- and perhaps more than a thousand million- will be living in absolute poverty and misery by the end of this century.

Our opinion stresses, though, that hunger in the world is not an inescapable fate, but is in fact to a great extent the result of an unequal and inequitable division of wealth and development opportunities between North and South. Tfie last few years have seen an increase rather than a decrease in the gap between the poor and rich countries, between North and South. This, as we say in our opinion, is a development which is fraught with the utmost danger for peace in the world. The European Community, which has already displayed practical solidarity in its policy vis-a-vis the countries of the Third World, is in a better position than any other political grouping to help to bridge this gap between North and South and to work towards a new, equitable world economic order.

The Committee on External Economic Relations in its opinion therefore supports the Committee on Development and Cooperation's call for immediate steps to help those people threathened with starvation. We also support the committee's appeal to the Commission and the Council to work out and implement an effective agricultural and food policy that takes account of the conclusions reached by the FAO Conference. Finally, we also give our wholehearted support to the Committee on Development and Cooperation's call for the industrialized countries to set aside 0.7% of their gross national product for development aid purposes. That is something that deserves to be reiterated here in this House ....

... We also support the idea that the Committee on Development and Cooperation should submit a report to the Europ~an Parliament by 1980, proposing practical measures for a

4

Heidi Wieczorek-Zeul (D), spokesman for the Committee on External Economic Relations, spoke in the debate (25.1 0.1979).

comprehensive policy on these matters. For this reason, the Committee on External Economic Relations has not formulated any detailed proposals, but has simply pointed, in its amendment, to the need for the European Community's external economic and trade relations to form part and parcel, of. the fight against hunger and underdevelopment throughout the world. Our trade relations with the countries of the Third World can help them to generate the finance necessary to develop agriculture, transport and irrigation in those countries. That is why we want to see the motion for a resolution include a call for the elimination of customs duties and other obstacles to trade to enable the countries of the Third World - and particularly the most underdeveloped among them - to build up trade relations.

Finally- and this again comes within the compass of trade and external economic relations -the nature of a developing country's trade relations dictates what kind of deyelopment model that country will adopt in the long run. It is no secret that a bias towards industrial development often results in agricultural development being neglected.

Finally, the amendment tabled by the Committee on External Economic Relations calls for the report which is due to be submitted to the European Parliament by February 1980 to include a detailed appraisal of the root causes of hunger in the world. We also call for the conclusions reached by the FAO in particular to be included in this report, and we want to see concrete steps taken by the European Community at all levels, .either by way of FAO investigations or by visits to the FAO or to the UN or to the affected countries themselves.

Some of the members of the committee even felt very strongly that the European Parliament would be well advised to send delegations to the countries worst affected by the threat of hunger. However, this was not the view taken by the committee as a whole.

I should like to conclude by making two personal remarks, which I hope will tie up with these concrete proposals. I believe that there should be separate negotiations on the International Cereals Agreement and the International Food Aid Agreement, as the delay encountered on the former is apparently holding up a decision on the latter.

It is in our utmost interest to bring the International Food Aid Agreement to a successful conclusion. Secondly, our proposals should include a demand for a modified International Food Market Organization. Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize for perhaps having let comments of a personal nature slip in here and there, but I am sure you will appreciate that one's emotions and sense of commitment are aroused by a subject like this. At any rate, I would ask you most sincerely to vote for our amendments and thus to help make the European Parliament a moral and political platform from which we can appeal to the world's conscience and ensure that words are matched by deeds.

5

Overcoming hunger in the world is a question of political will.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen I would like to thank Mr Cheysson for reporting to us unemotionally, in this debate, on the role of the European Community, on its responsiblities and capabilities, as well as on its failures to act. The fact is that the European Community is the biggest trading power in the world. Its supluses are gradually eating away its budget, and its people are falling ill from overeating. This European Community claims it is for peace policy, human rights and more international social justice. It has powers, instruments, capabilities, resources and instruments like Lome I, and soon Lome II, or the common trade policy, and even, in the meantime, some signs of a worldwide development policy. At long last it now offers the prospect of development cooperation. Our governments are jointly and severally responsible for the situation in the world. All nine States have committed themselves to the 0.7% target for development aid, and the citizens in our countries, ladies and gentlemen, can be shaken into action and be very generous in some disaster situations. Even so, as Mr Cheysson has just said, "the Community does not pull its weight". As ever, this is still the sad reality. Half a billion people are in permanent hunger, and this hunger is growing. In 1979/80, for example, we shall have 80 million tonnes less grain and 80 million more people on this earth. Starvation disasters are growing to the apocalyptic scale of Kampuchea.

We are holding today's debate in this contradictory situation of surplus and hunger­the ultimate violation of the most elementary of human rights.

But this discussion, ladies and gentlemen, will have failed in its object if it is not seen as the start of a coherent and continuous action by the European Community, if once again it merely ends with a finesounding resolution and if it does not help us to abandon the methods and structures of the past and the ways in which we have tried to identify and solve problems up to now.

It must call a halt; it must mean an end to the too slow, too late, too little, too cautious and too hesitant. It must be the starting signal for this action urged by this European Parliament and its committees and aimed at speedier and more practical measures and better results. For this we shall need angry impatience, some signs of which are apparent today; but we also need patience and a sense of proportion, however difficult this may be for us. We need imagination, but we also need better organization, and we certainly need more money.

In February, after some intensive effort, we shall come back to the Plenary Assembly with something that will have, by then, to be fully worked out. From today on -I would like to say this very clearly - we Members of Parliament will have to keep exerting pressure on the Commission, and even more so on the Council, and constantly check up on what they are doing.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Development and Cooperation has tried to deal immediately with what suggests itself at this moment, namely the attempt not just to reinstate the Commission's 1980 food aid proposal, slashed by the Council but to go further than that with a hefty jump and to apply, for the first time, an amount representing the optimum that the Commission can, in its own words, handle or, to be more outspoken, distribute.

Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Budgets did not go along with this proposed amendment. Now it really will be a matter of whether we are ready, at the budget debate in November, to put our preparedness to act to the test by tabling and adopting this amendment proposed by the Committee on Development and Cooperation. Otherwise it will be the same old story : we talk but when the first opportunity to act comes along, we let it go by.

Of course, we also know that food aid is not only a quantitative question, and that for many years there have been qualitative and structural shortcomings which will one day have to be corrected. For this reason, when we really begin the intensive work in committee after this debate, out first job will be to investigate this and, by February, point the finger more plainly at these deficiencies, but we must also table proposals for rectifying them.

In the same period we shall look closely into the way our Community food aid is throttled through being linked up with a new world cereals agreement that is not materializing. As the Committee on External Economic Relations requests, this link-up must definitely be broken.

6

Katharina Focke (D), member of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, stressed the need to take practical measures (25.10.1979).

We shall also be looking into the by and large- in spite of the few examples that we thank you, Mr Cheysson, for quoting with regard to disaster aid - still defective • coordination between the Community and individual Member states in food aid. We shall have to study the unwieldy decision-making machinery in Brussels. For about the last five years, the Council is supposed to have been deciding on a new regulation on the administration of food aid. Even if it did finally materialize, this would certainly be no patent cure, but it would enable the Commission to act more freely and quickly, it would allow us to have pluri-annual food-aid agreements, and it would make it easier occasionally to purchase food in nearby areas instead of always on European community markets and perhaps to do a little more in the way of decentralized stocks. It is a scandal that, after five years, nothing has happened, and that the day before yesterday in Luxembourg, the development aid Ministers again failed to make any progress on this matter. To me, this is one of the things on which we have to get the Council moving.

We shall also be looking at the excessive delays that continue to occur between requests for aid and delivery on the spot, as well as the shortcomings in transport, packing, storage (how much waste occurs in this alone?) and distribution, so as to ensure that the food really reaches those it is intended for - the hungry.

' We shall indeed - and you were right, Mr Cheysson, to dwell on this aspect- have to look into the Community's inability to dq anything about supply and price fluctuations on the world markets or to show more foresight, make better provision and develop more emergency stocks. Where, in fact, is the Community's contribution to the 500000 tonnes emergency stock decided by the United Nations years ago?

Secondly, we must look at the relationship between effective food aid and the EEC agricultural policy. Nothing must be allowed to remain of the old approach to food aid as, so to speak, an offshoot of EEC agricultural surpluses. Food aid is a development policy instrument in its own right. It must obey its own particular criteria and not be tied to the Community agricultural policy. There is nothing against using certain surpluses in European agricultural policy if they correspond to specific needs in the recipent countries, but that is just where our problem lies, because there must, of course, also be surpluses that can be supplied at reasonable prices. So here is a second major task for the Committees in the next few weeks.

Thirdly, we know that real food aid becomes increasingly efficient the closer it is tied in with rural development and local production projects. There are opportunities for this kind of tie-up, Mr Cheysson, in the Lome Convention and in the cooperation that is beginning with the countries outside that convention, and I would very much like to know how much tying up the Commission has in fact done. How many food shipments are connected up with such projects? In our committees we shall, I am sure, want to know very much more about this in the next few weeks, and I could well imagine that the inability of the Community hitherto to get more development cooperation projects going with other Third World countries outside the Lome Convention in the kind of numbers that Parliament has long been outlining would be that much less if more concentration was focused than previously on projects tied in with the worldwide foodaid network.

Fourthly, it is- of course- a question of the whole problem of rural development and increasing agricultural production in the Third World and an even greater shift of emphasis in the instruments that we have for this purpose.

It must surely alarm us to know that in Africa for example, where we are now into the Fourth European Development Fund, there was more food per head of" population in 1970 than there is today. I am glad to learn from a report on rural development and on community projects under the Lome Convention that we are today- you have just referred to this again- giving more, for rural development projects than for export crop projects,for example, which for many years received the lion's share from this, is sufficient, or that we have tried hard enough to shift the emphasis - always fully respecting the independence of our partners - and to provide sufficient resources to make it easier than previously to put this si:Jift of emphasis into effect and also to serve other priorities of the developing countries. We, as Members of the European Parliament, shall have quite definitely to give our very close consideration to the new chapter of the Lome II convention on agricultural cooperation between the ACP countries and the EEC, and check to what extent and how rapidly it is put into effect.

7

More agricultural development and production naturally means more development in general, more growth, more employment, better incomes, and greater justice in the distribution of wealth in the Third World. Food aid can only be an aid, a transitional solution, as has rightly been stressed once again. The ultimate object is self-sufficiency, in other words the ability for all mankind on this earth to buy food with the income from their own labour. Industry and craft trades, therefore, energy and technology, training and education, all these are involved. I cannot deal with this in detail now, but one of our tasks in the coming weeks will naturally be once again to state the priorities in as practical terms as possible and at the same time remind our governments, or most of them -and here, unfortunate.ly, I must include my own country among the offenders- that they are far from reaching .the 0.7% target. To my mind, the growing hunger in the world is helping to build up a moral pressure, and at the same time it is something that makes the citizens in our countries - if there are still any for whom this is a major obstacle -readier to increase the share of tax revenue earmarked for this purpose.

Sixthly, another equally important point is the whole problem of trade liberalization and the opening of our markets- a new, forward looking structural and industrial policy in the European community designed to advance the new international division of labour. This, ladies and gentlemen naturally means more than just involving ourselves, however deeply, in a debate entitled "World Hunger"; it means that throughout all our committee work, in breadth and length, and in an infinite number of individual cases when there is conflict between our interests and the development of the Third World, between agricultural policy and development policy and between the problems of developing industries in the Third World and employment policy in the West, we must always have the courage to face up to this conflict of interests and look beyond the boundary of our own horizons. This is basically the conclusion of this debate which I regard essentially as a pledge on our part to make a fresh start in the way we deal with our problems.

It also, of course, means more readiness to provide information. I agree with Ms Bonino, in part- the readiness is there with the information we are already giving but we must be clear about this: we have to have more courage, in the present situation in the community, to tell the taxpayers, workers and unemployed- the citizens who elected us- that all this has to come from somewhere, and that it means that in the future we hpve to give up part of the increase in our income. It is as concrete and precise as that, and we sh~ll have to say this and have the political and civil courage to repeat it over and over again at every opportunity that offers.

let me repeat: in this debate we are first and foremost pledging ourselves. It can be only a first step. The second debate -that is our proposal - must take place in February at the latest. At that time we have to produce fl European Community food programme in the form of a concrete package. For this we shall need every kind of expertise. Thank you again for the suggestion, Mr Cheysson. I could imagine, for example, that it would be useful to ask Willy Brandt, who is to contribute a chapter on the war against hunger in this world in his report of the North-South commission in the next few weeks, to speak to the relevant committees.' We ·snail need him and others­every expert we can find. But we must, above all, also urge the Commission to overcome any form of comparmentalized thinking, to weld together more strongly than before its services and officials and the various Directorates and Directorates-General and form them into a combat unit, and to embark upon an out-of-the-ordinary effort, on top of what has already been done, in order to combine together our instruments, financing capabilities, possibilities of action and above all ideas. At the same time, from the commission, but above all from the Council, we shall require concrete decisions. We have no right to back out from this world hunger problem. What is more, we are capable of conquering it, it is just a question of political will.

8

Edith Cresson (F), member of the Committee on Agriculture, pointed to the responsibility borne by the giant food and agricultural companies (25.1 0.1979).

" ... throw light on the mistakes which have been profitable for some."

Mr President, it is not the duty of Parliament to cover ground that has been covered many times before, but to highlight the factors that have led to the present situation, the mistakes that have been made and from which some people have reaped huge rtwards.

We must ask ourselves two questions. Firstly: why this constant deterioration? and, secondly: what can we do to stop it and bring about a change for the better?

First we have to find out what is causing the situation. Is it the climate, drought, hurricanes ? Is it population growth, population density per hectare under cultivation ? Is it the state of technological advancement, the use of fertilizers or pesticides ?

Mr President, let me say that it is none of these. Given the means, we can overcome the ravages of the climate. There are countries with a high population density per hectare under cultivation that are well able to meet their food requirements. China, for example, has 0.13 hectare per head of population and India has 0.3 hectare. So the determining factor is not so much the population distribution, as we are asked to believe, but the system of land tenure and, by extension, the political and social system. According to the FAO, 2.5% of landowners possessing more thari 100 hectares control three quarters of all the world's arable land and 0.232% of them control one half of it. In Latin America, one third of the rural population controls less than 1 % of all agricultural land.

Second point: in most cases intervention by rich countries has exacerbated the situation. Take the Green Revolution, based on the use of western products and techniques. The developed countries, particularly the United States, come along and accelerate the concentration of land. Then the big agricultural and food multinationals step in and intensify output of export crops to the detriment of crops intended for local consumption. They throw into unemployment a large part of the workforce engaged in traditional agriculture. And all this with the connivance of local elites set up on the model of the so­called "liberal" school of economic thought, the principal criteria of which are efficiency and profitability.

This system is manipulated by a handful of businessmen at the Chicago Stock Exchange or in the plush offices of big grain combines who keep a stranglehold on the market price. This price is largely the result of speculation, hoarding and negotiated agreements. And those who juggle the price for their own gain are playing with the lives -and deaths- of millions of people. This system is not just a means of making money, it is also a political weapon. We Europeans, would do well to think about this before we decide that the common agricultural policy is costing us too dear.

Nearly all of us here come from nations that have committed criminal acts. And it would be futile to indulge in recrimination. The fact is that the strong are sometimes guilty of oppressing the weak if there are no laws to stop them.

The European Parliament must therefore invest itself with the means not of joining in the lamentations of which public opinion would soon tire but with the means whereby a useful contribution may be made. Through its ACP agreements, for example, Europe has so far done the most. What we need to do is to help the poor nations to help themselves, so that they need not be for ever dependent on aid.

We realize, of course, that the present level of aid is just not adequate. Aid from the Comecon countries, incidentally, represents only 6 to 8% of aid from the West. The level of aid must therefore be increased very quickly, and in this connection the idea put forward by the Brandt committee of an "international tax" raised in the industrialized countries on the basis of their potential seems to me to be worth closer examination.

But, as I have said, aid is not enough. Not only is it frequently diverted but also it can have a perverse effect, particularly on agrarian sturctures and agricultural production. Parliament has on a number of occasions spoken out in favour of aid being granted so as to preserve certain minimum standards, such as those adopted by the ILO. Well, I am sure you will agree that the right of poor people not to die of starvation does constitue a

9

minimum standard. That is why we are asking the European Parliament to pass a Charter of Human Economic Rights, the wording of which might run as follows: "Any multinational corporation operating in Third World countries that fails to observe certain conditions will be banned by Europe from importing into Europe any of its products. "My speaking time being limited, I cannot list the conditions now, but I will submit them in writing.

We have come to the conclusion that the pressures exerted on governments to persuade them to observe human rights - necessary as these pressures are, they rarely have any effect- are inadequate when trying to contend with the pernicious activities of the multinational corporations justified on the grounds of economic expediency. The standing arrangement between local elites and the multinationals, sheltering behind the argument of non-interference, means that money and arms deals can be concluded with complete impunity. The European Parliament should compile a White Paper on the implications of these activites of the multinationals. There are already numerous documents in existence, as Ms Bonino mentioned a short while ago. All that is needed is for them to be gathered together and for us to draw our lesson from them.

Finally, the Commission should take into account such information when negotiating new trade agreements like the one presently being negotiated with Brazil. 1 believe now that it would be unthinkable to renew agreements like the one on generalized prefereces, which comes up for renewal in 1980, without first evaluating the results of the previous agreement. And I mean both the direct and indirect results I spoke of a moment ago.

It would be equally unthinkable for agreements to be negotiated without Parliament having first discussed the specific criteria that need to be applied to take into account the real food requirements of the poorest nations.

But there are times when prompt action is needed. This is the case now. For this reason the European Parliament should. encourage the immediate setting up of a "save the people" taskforce to look after those who find themselves in a desperate situation. It is simply not enough for us to salve our consciences by sending food and medical supplies.

The problem of hunger must be tackled by us Europeans. No one else will do it.

10

1980 Budget

For the Socialist Group the Budget is both a symbol and the instrument for action to which the Community should give priority. It must be capable of playing an effective part in the fight against unemployment, against regional imbalances; it must enable industrial, energy and transport policies to be carried out and allow the EEC to assume its responsibilities with respect to the developing countries.

A coherent common agricultural policy ensuring food supplies and defending the interests of farmers constitutes an essential part of Community policy but cannot be considered as a "sacred cow".

In rejecting the 1980 budget the Socialist Group wished to denounce the attitude of the European council and the Council of Ministers, who pay lip service to these views but in practice rejected Parliament's amendments designed to implement this policy.

In the budget debate on the first reading, Eva Gredal (Soc. OK) spoke on behalf of the Socialist Group. Barbara Castle (UK), Edith Cression (F), Anne-Marie Lizin (B), Katharina Focke (D) and Madalena Hoff spoke on certain specific problems.

11

\

\. -----·-

\.

' •

12

\

\

\ .,

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I

Eva Gredal (DK) explained the position of the Socialist Group on the 1980 budget presented by the Council.

' ... a clear and realistic view of the economic, social and regional problems '

As we in the Socialist Group see it, the Community's measures should cover all groups of the population in the nine Member States. However, this view does not appear to be shared by the Council, but since this point was made by another member of the Socialist Group at the first debate on the budget, I will not go into the matter again. I should nevertheless like to say, after having examined the budget in all its details once more, that this point continues to be valid.

Before going on to deal more directly with the proposed amendments, I should like to add that the Council should, in my view, give some serious thought to whether or not it is losing credibility, not least in the case of the Council of Heads of State and Government and the Council of Finance Ministers. How can the Heads of State and Government go on at meeting after meeting reaffirming the importance of combati11g unemployment, strengthening our energy policy, stepping up joint research and much more, and continue to think that the people of Europe will have confidence in them when their Finance Ministers immediately proceed to introduce cutbacks in all these fields ?

The attitude of the Socialist Group is clear from our amendments. It is our wish that the budget should demonstrate the solidarity of the Community, particularly in the field of unemployment, regional disparities and energy and environmental policy. We fully realize, of course, that this will cost money, but we are not simply asking for an increase in the budget. The majority of the Socialist Group is not in favour of considering an increase in the Community's own revenue until more tangible decisions are taken in the field of agriculture and until ways of reducing agricultural expenditure are examined. We also take the view that the Community's budget should not be used in fields which should more properly be covered by the national budgets, and still less for an uneconomic duplication of expenditure already covered by the national budgets. Another thing we find totally irrational is the fact that Community funds are used most inappropriately. For example, payments are made to profitable private undertakings in the energy sector. What is the idea behind giving aid to, for instance, multinational companies in their search for oil.

The amendments tabled by the Socialist Group follow a clear line on the basis of two fundamental principles. Firstly, we feel that Community expenditure should be subject to much closer control by Parliament, which can be done by freezing appropriations under Chapter 100. I am thinking here for example, of uranium prospecting, expenditure on the institutes in Dublin and Berlin and expenditure on information.

We should like to know what is being done before the money is spent.

Secondly, extra money in the Community should, in our view, be devoted to causes which really are deserving, such as the Regional Fund. The majority of the Socialist Group welcomes Mr Dankert's proposals on agricultural expenditure, and we particularly support the proposal to increase the co-responsibility levy. Unfortunately, this item in Mr Dankert's package was not accepted by the Committee on Budgets, but we, the majority of the Socialist Group, intend to ratable this amendment together, we hope, with other groups in this Parliament. Incidentally, we find it extremely curious that the Democratic Group supported only that part of Mr Dankert's package advocating a reduction in the appropriations for the storage of dairy products, but not the part calling for a more effective structural policy. This has reduced the political impact of the proposals of the Committee on Budgets, but the majority of the Socialist Group will continue to do all it can to remedy the damage which Mr Dankert's proposals have suffered.

The total absence of control over agricultural expenditure has been a clear political challenge to all the Community institutions. Until the meeting of the Agricultural Ministers in Luxembourg last Monday and Tuesday, the Council showed absolutely no interest in this matter. It rejected the Commission's proposals for food prices for 1979-1980 but it appears from this meeting that the Agricultural Ministers have now realized - at least we hope so -that they themselves must do something about solving the problems. Otherwise - as some of them themselves admitted after the meeting -their Finance Ministers or Heads of State or Government would have to do it for them. It is surprising

13

that this has not happened before, since several Heads of State and Government have made statements on agricultural expenditure, although these have never led to anything in practice. Both Helmut Schmidt and Margaret Thatcher have stated that they directly opposed the views of their agricultural ministers. As can be seen from the amendments we have tabled, we are prepared to help the Council in solving these problems.

There is a lack of political balance in the Comm.unity's budget. The United Kingdom suffers particularly from this, since its entitlements under the agricultural arrangements do not amount to very much. It will not, however, be possible to solve the question of the national contributions without a thorough examination of the role and purpose of the Community budget. So-called corrective mechanisms will only in effect- as Mr Dankert also pointed out in his package- disguise the real problem. In the past, Parliament has just looked on when agricultural expenditure was being fixed, but this new Parliament cannot accept such a limited role. Parliament's rights should not be extended, but the greatest use should be made of them with a view to achieving reforms.

Parliament cannot be satisfied with a limited role which enables it to propose amendments only with regard to non-obligatory expenditure. Furthermore, we know from experience that even in cases where Parliament has succeeded in pushing its amendments through, the Council has prevented the Commission from using the money. By adopting the budget and monitoring expenditure, Parliament must get the Council to accept its responsibility. The draft budget presented by the Council was a symbol of political stagnation, consisting as it did of massive increases in agricultural expenditure, cutbacks in expenditure on regional policy, practically nothing on the energy policy and no increase in subsidies on foodstuffs. The Finance Ministers of the Community have not acted in a responsible manner.

I should like to go into a few specific political points. The attitude of certain other groups in Parliament, such as the right-wing European parties, is a little confusing, to put it mildly. They reduce public expenditure in their own countries, but at the same time advocate an increase in the Community budget here in the European Parliament. The Socialist Group is in favour of public expenditure, provided it is necessary and subject to effective democratic control, and this is our guiding principle at both national and European level. If this Parliament is to be taken seriously, its Members and groups must act responsibly.

If the Members of Parliament advocate one policy here and a different one at home, this Parliament is in danger of becoming a laughing stock.

Apart from the proposals regarding agriculture, the main amendment proposed by the Socialist Group relates to the Regional Fund. This is one of the few items on the budget where the Socialists are in favour of a larger amount than that proposed by the Commission. Parliament as such unanimously deplores the Council's proposal, which is lower than that contained in this year's budget. We in the Socialist Group will continue to work for a reduction in the difference between rich and poor regions in Europe. We should like to draw attention to the need for the Community to demonstrate to those suffering from regional problems our intention to take steps to deal with increasing unemployment and poverty.

Another important item is the Social Fund, particularly as regards young persons, women and migrant wor~ers. The Social Fund represents only a very small proportion of the budget, i.e. 5-6%, and this amount should, we think, be substantially increased. The Socialist Group intends to support the Commission's original proposals regarding this Fund.

The Socialist Group supports the demand for an active industrial policy and for Community aid to those sectors of industry which are particularly hard hit by the structural crisis in Europe. However, we are extremely concerned about the role of the Commission in this matter. For example, the Commission asked for 35 million u.a. in the preliminary draft budget, but when the Council deleted this amount, Mr Davignon explained to Parliament's Economic Affairs Committee that the Commission did not in fact want this money. For this reason, the Socialists will vote against the proposals for expenditure under this section, not because we are opposed to a common industrial policy, but because the Commission has not yet put forward any proposals we can

14

support. If it comes up with more precise programmes, we will certainly support them. In our view, it is particularly important that we should also ensure financial aid to the steel industry, and hope that the groups will be able to reach a compromise on Mrs Hoff's proposal concerning Chapter 54. Simply to make a token proposal regarding such an important sector is not enough : token gestures like this can do nothing to help the steel industry.

We are also extremely concerned that the funds for the social policy should be used correctly. We propose freezing part of the money allocated to the Berlin and Dublin institutes for the study of vocational training and working conditions, so that we in Parliament can see how this money is being used before approving increased e~penditure.

Environmental policy also occupies an important pface in our amendments. This is an area of policy where the Community should be more active and where the Commission should make more concrete proposals in the coming year.

As regards consumer policy, the Socialist Group also advocates an increase. This is not a major item in the budget, but it may be possible to finance very useful work.of benefit to consumers by a very slight increase in the budget. For example, the entire consumer protection sector could benefit from an increase of this kind. To give only one example we in the Socialist Group have pressed hard for an enlargement of the Women's Bureau in Brussels. This would involve only- and I hope you will permit me to say 'only' -nine extra staff, but this in itself would be a considerable improvement since at the moment the staff consists of only one person. However, the fact of enlarging the staff of the Women's Bureau from one to nine, would demonstrate how a small amount of money can be of great significance for a large section of the population of Europe, i.e. women.

As regards loans, our group supports the proposals of the Committee on Budgets, and if the Council rejects these particular proposals, I must point out that the Socialist Group will support them again at the second reading and insist that the budget should include appropriations for lending and borrowing operations and the European Development Fund. The Council cannot be allowed to undermine Parliament's powers by financing Community policy outside the frame-work of the budget.

The total number of amendments tabled by the Committee on Budgets this year is less than last year. We think this is reasonable. Ths moderation shown in these proposals in itself indicate that Parliament is a lot more realisatic than it used to be, which means that the Council is under a particular obligation to act in a correspondingly responsible manner. If the Council continues- as it did in July- to ignore the need to reform agricultural expenditure and to increase expenditure on regional and social policy, this will inevitably lead to a major conflict between us.

The European Parliament is not always spoken of with respect, and this is perhaps understandable on occasions. However, it would be pleasant if other aspects of Parliament's work could also win favour with the press. I will venture to say that the work of the Committee on Budgets this year has been extremely realistic and down-to-earth. Opinions differ - but this is only natural where politicians meet freely - but the fear which was felt in various quarters before the new directly elected Parliament began its work - the fear that it would now become totally divorced from reality - must, I think, be dismissed as far as the budget is concerned.

The Socialist Group is not looking for an institutional conflict with the Council. We strongly hope that the first reading of the budget will be a success. However, if this is to be the case, the Council must change its attitude on two main points, i.e. the control of agricultural expenditure and the respect for the rights of the European Parliament as laid down in the Treaty. The Socialist Group has not tabled any amendments which do not follow a realistic social line, and no unreasonable demands have been made. Indeed, the Commission and Council must not be so unrealistic as to expect us to withdraw our demands for a policy for all sections of the population in Europe. If they do, the problems surrounding the adoption of the budget will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to solve. We therefore appeal to the Council and Commission to adopt the same realistic view as we take. I should like to point out, finally, that a number of my colleagues in the Socialist Group would like to comment on some of the other amendments tabled.

15

Barbara Castle (UK) defending the cut in the ever­increasing expenditure on the common agricultural policy, also spoke out in favour of a structural reform of this policy, taking account of all the particular circumstances (6.11.79).

" reform the common agricultural policy"

Mr President, we have all listened with interest to Commissioner Gundelach. I think we would all agree with him that the check on the runaway agricultural spending should be our top imperative in trying to get a balanced and disciplined budget. I of cour,se don't agree with everything he said about the common agricultural policy. I do not have the opportunity of arguing with him on that because my time is so limited. But on his central theme I go with him all the way. Unless we tackle the openended commitment to agricultural spending, we can say goodbye to every other policy of which we dream.

That is why I was really very surprised last night when his colleague, Commissioner Tugendhat, told us that the Commission is preparing at this very moment to bring forward very soon proposals for finding increased resources for financing the Community, i.e. before the Commission's proposals for checking agricultural spending have been implemented.

Surely the Commissioner,listening to Mr Fruh introduce the report of the Committee on Agriculture, must have realized what we are up against in the form of entrenched agricultural interests when we try to put in a word for the consumer. The voice of the consumer is never heard in the Committee on Agriculture majority view. So we have that flabby report : willingness to endeavour to control agricultural spending, while running away from every concrete proposal for making it possible. Therefore I say to the Commission : is it not clear that the budget crisis is the best lever we have for securing the reforms we all know must come in the common agricultural policy? So why does the Commission propose to give it up ? Is it half-hearted too ? Why does the Commission propose to relieve that crisis by finding new resources for financing the very agricultural policy we think should cost us less. The Socialist Group does not go along with the move to increase own resources at the present time, and I must tell this House that the British people would never tolerate it as long as the agricultural burdens are as great as they are. And so I say to the House that we have got to make, the reduction in the open­ended cost of the agricultural policy, our overriding aim. And I also want to say this: it is clear, is it not, that only the greatest possible pressure from this Parliament will make that reduction possible.

We do not forget it was the Council of Agricultural Ministers who in June increased the agricultural budget, against the commission's advice, by some £ 1 400 million. And incidentally of course it put up Britain's contribution at the same time - a remarkable piece of double talk by British Conservative Ministers. I hope we are not going to have double talk from any corner of this House today because, of course, we have had some on regional policy. I see for instance that the Conservative Group are supporting amendments to restore the spending on the Regional Fund to the figure which the Commission originally proposed. Fine! Their amendments do not go as far as the Socialist Group but still they are fine. That is at least a step in the right direction. But who was it who cut the Commission's figure for expenditure on regional policy. The Council of Ministers, and Britain's own Treasury Minister, Mr Nigel Lauwson, voted in the Coucil of Ministers for neary halving it. The truth is ... I am sorry, my time is limited, otherwise I would willingly give way. I believe in the give and take of our parliamentary tradition, but I am under a strict time-limit, as we are not in our own House of Commons. The truth is that there just will not be any money for regional policy unless we stop the ·open-ended spending on agricultural policy.

Three amendments are crucial here. Two of them I am glad ts say are proposed by the Committee on Budgets itself, and those are to cut the expenditure on skimmed-milk surpluses and divert the money to reforming agriculture. Of course such a step is long overdue. Only last week I asked Commissioner Gundelach for his estimate of the cost of disposing of suplus skimmed-milk products over the coming year and the answer was 1 274 million units of account, that is about£ 800 million, or about a tenth of this year's budget, for disposing of skimmed-milk surpluses alone. I am therefore glad there was a committee on Budgets agreement to take this welcome step. But as the commissioner has pointed out, that step on its own will not end the creation of the milk surpluses, and it is that that we must tackle if we really mean the fine things we say.

17

I see British conservatives have a number of amendments making token reductions in spending in the dairy sector. But you know, we are now elected. Token reductions were a good device for the last Parliament, but we are elected now and we are elected to deliver the goods in the field of agricultural spending and the only way to do that is to tackle the milk surplus at its source by taxing the excess production which is creating the surpluses. And that is what Amendment 301 seeks to do by increasing the co­responsiblitiy levy, the tax on the excess production we talked about.

Now I do not pretend, any more than commissioner Gundelach does, that this is the whole answer to the problems of the common agricultural policy. I agree with him we have got to work out graduated, adapted solutions, and I agree with him too that there must be structural changes as well. But the point I want to press home to this Parliament today is that it is the only effective instrument available to us in this budget for initiating charges, for stopping talking and starting acting instead. By passing Amendment 301 we can take the first positive step to reform the dairy sector of the CAP, and I am glad to see that the signatures to this amendment are an impressive cross-section of all sides of this Parliament. Not just Labour signatories, not just the budget rapporteur's signature, but Christian-Democrat, Liberal and Communist signatures. The only signatures lacking are those of the British conservatives and of course of our French comrades. We all know they stand alone on thesis. I want to plead with the British conservatives, because they can help to give us on Wednesday the majority we need to get this amendment through. And I woud remind them of this : if we do carry it we have a very strong chance indeed of seeing that the Council of Ministers carry it out.

As the House knows these amendments to not increase expenditure. So under the budgetary rules there would have to be a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers not for it, but to throw it out. So just two governements could block the adoption of our reform. I want to know whether the British Government is going to be one of those blocking the adoption of this reform. It has talked long enough about the need to reform the common agricultural policy, but what I find time and time again in this House and its committees is that when it comes to deeds the vested agricultural intersts are too strong. And I say therefore, in supporting these amendments and urging them on the House, let us have at last some of the action the British people voted for.

18

Edith Cresson (F) expressed the concern of the French socialists. The common agricultural policy required complete reconsideration, but was it possible to resolve all the problems through the debate on the budget ? (6.11.1979).

" a new impetus for the common agricultural policy"

We have come round once again to discussing the problem of the common agricultural policy, and specifically the cost of dairy surpluses. Let us ask ourselves two questions: do we expect to resolve the problems of the common agricultural policy, problems which we French Socialists believe are very real, through the budget debate ? We should be deluding ourselves if we did. Do we think that a reasonable common agricultural policy would be sufficient to ensure that other common policies can be implemented ? That would be a mistake. The common agricultural policy deserves a proper debate by this directly-elected Parliament and I hope we shall have it soon. Meanwhile I should like to make a few observations and proposals in connection with the dairy problem.

The social importance of encouraging and preserving small and medium-scale farms in the regions is now beyond dispute. In Europe, 73% of producers account for 28% of milk deliveries, with less than 50 000 kilos per year; conversely, 2.2% of producers account for 20% of deliveries, with over 250 000 kilos per year. ·

The disparities between the countries of the community are considerable. In France, only 5 % of producers have a yield of over 25 000 kilos per year. In the United Kingdom, 27% of producers account for 65% of total production, with over 250 ooq kilos per year. For small and medium-scale farms dairy production is the sole source of income and believe me we know these farmers, we meet them every day.

Why should these small producers be made to pay for the deficiencies of a policy for which they are in no way responsible ? French socialists and left-wing radicals consider that a uniform co-responsiblility levy is as unfair as it is inappropriate and that a way of modulating it should be worked out, bearing in mind that there is no reason to apply it at all below 60 000 kilos per year. We await the Commission's proposals on this matter.

To add to these disparities there are the monetary mechanisms which are one of the reasons for Germany's massive exports of dairy products to Italy and for the very large stocks in countries with strong currencies. These mechanisms also have an indirect effect on the purchaisng power of farmers when it comes to buying intermediates like soya, fertilizers, agricultural machinery and so forth. Thus, for example, in 1977 100 kilos of milk would pay for 65 kilos of soya in France, as against 128 kilos in Germany. The gap has widened from 43% to 53 %. The solution to the problem of surpluses is therefore also to be found through strong monetary measures. And that again is something over which the small producers have no control.

And another thing : why draw a distinction between milk production and the production of fats? Today the community imports and processes four times more vegetable fats than butter. One of the external causes of these surpluses is the importing of New Zealand butter.

For this very reason I, together with several of my colleagues in the Socialist Group­and not just French - are proposing a levy on vegetable fats. I shall be told that such a measure would penalize the countries of the Third World. Well, let the commission come up with proposals to overcome this snag and make the multinationals pay y.rithout harming the poor of this world I In order to find the resources and to persuade public opinion to accept an increase in resources I think that the common agricultural policy must be discussed with all its structural, social and monetary implications, with all the visible and invisible barriers to the free movement of dairy products, whether they have to do with hygiene, packaging or what have you.

Before we make our small producers pay through the nose we need to look at the operations and the profits of the large agricultural food combines. Let us also be aware of Europe's need to be self-sufficient in food, of our role in aid and of the need for all to observe the rules of the game : unity of the market, financial solidarity and Community preference - all of which have so often been sniped at over the last few years.

We hope the case that will be presented to us for a new definition of the common agricultural policy will contain principles that will help to breathe new life into that policy and the construction of Europe. Meanwhile, the French Socialists will be voting against the proposed reductions in the agricultural budget, no matter where the proposals may come from, including those of the rapporteur, however friendly the intention behind them.

19

"Parliament must help to solve the social problems in the steel industry".

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will try to keep to the very short speaking time allocated to me, although it will not allow me to go into detail on the subject I wish to discuss. I am asking you to listen to what I have to say on a highly political problem area, the structural crisis in the iron and steel industry. This is undoubtedly the most important subject for thi~ House after the agricultural policy. Steel is, as it were, industry's milk problem. The social problems resulting from the continued structural crisis can no longer be solved at national level, and our Parliament must therefore contribute to solving the problems we are now facing.

My concern is that funds should be made available for joint social measures in favour of the iron and steel companies affected. What we need first and foremost are social measures to alleviate the adverse effect on employment. The retraining aids provided for in Article 56 of the ECSC Treaty are not sufficient for this purpose. The Commission has therefore proposed additional measures. They concern in particular aids in the field of early retirement and aids for the reoganization of working conditions and of working hours. These aids will be granted on condtion that they do not interfere in the decision­making autonomy of the parties to collective agreements and that they do in fact result in an improvement of the labour market situation without impairing the competitiveness of the undertakingss.

The measures specifically comprise aids for early retirement, part-time work, additional shifts and the abolition of overtime - all of which the European Trade Union Confederation has long called for. Representatives of the employers, and in particular EUROFER and the German Association of the Iron and Steel Industry, have also expressed their views on this. They have expressly warned against direct financial participation by the European community. They are afraid this will lead to confusion and distortion of competition and have the effect of consolidating existing structures. They consider the "self-healing powers" of the free market economy sufficient to solve these problems. These suggestions should be borne in mind. I do not, however, believe that they can have the desired effect. The unemployment problem and the social effects of structural changes must be given priority over regulatory considerations.

I shall shortly be submitting a detailed report on behalf of the Committee on Budgets concerning the appropriations set aside for these purposes. I am speaking today because a decision will be taken on several amendments tomorrow during the budget discussions.

As you know, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission entered 100m units of account in the preliminary draft 1980 budget. This was to be transferred to the ECSC budget, but the Council completely rejected this proposal for a transfer. However, the transfer would not have solved the financing problems facing the ECSC operational budget. There is not enough time to go into this. I will simply say in this connection that in the 1979 financial year the Member States contributed 28 m units of account on an ad hoc basis and that there is likely to be a financing deficit of 70 m units of account in the operational budget again next year.

The Council has, as I have said, rejected the transfer of 100 m units of account. I ask myself whether the national governments really feel that they themselves can still solve the problems. I do not believe that the Member States concerned can continue to do without the solidarity of the Community in this area. We should therefore reinstate the 1 00 m units of account in the budget.

In the Committee on Budgets, there was an equal number of votes for and against, and the relevant amendment was therefore rejected.

20

Magdalena Hoff (D) dealt with the crisis in the steel industry of Europe and particularly its social aspects. She stressed the need to obtain appropriations in order to take social measures to protect employment. (6.11.1979).

All we have now, therefore, is a token entry. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which has been asked for its opinions in this matter, has tabled amendments, whose contents, however, differ. There are two other amendments which like the amendments of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment, call for the 1 00 m units of account to be entered in Chapter 54 of the Community budget. The authors of these amendments are thus adopting an idea put forward by the rapporteur, Mr Dankert, which aimed at creating two separate budget lines. 30 m units of account in payment appropriations and 100 m units of account in commitment appropriations were to be entered in Chapter 54 and then be spent primarily on social measures under the Community budget. A further amendment provides for a token entry in a second line. This would mean that if the appropriations in the first line could not be utilized, they could be transferred to the second line of Chapter 54 and from there to the operational budget.

I feel that these amedments cover all the aspects that have so far been put forward during the parliamentary debate. Social policy measures should primarily be taken under the Community budget. But if this is not possible the appropriations can nevertheless be transferred to the ECSC operational budget. But this can only be done as a result of Parliament's decision, since the expenditure concerned in non-compulsory. I feel that if we can come to an agreement tomorrow and adopt these amendments, Parliament will be taking a major step towards fulfilling the expectations of the steel workers and their families.

21

" ... the inequalities between rich and poor which are to be overcome"

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have spent many, many hours here discussing problems connected with international Community policy, as it were. Very important problems. Burning issues for the position of the Community's citizens, problems to do with discrimination and the need to eliminate the difference between the poor and the rich, as was the case when we discussed the regional policy.

Now we have reached Title 9 and have spent a few minutes talking about what this Community must do for the outside world, about its contribution to peace in the world, which is the real task set out in the Treaties, a peace which is threatened just as much by extreme social inequality as by armaments. I am referring to what I would call the solidarity of this Community's activities towards the outside world, exp!essed in the figures as reflected in this Title 9, solidarity of action which the Commission has recognized, talked about ~nd pursued for many years. The Council for its part has spoken of the need for increased willingness to take action. The European Parliament has drawn up many resolutions along these lines, and as recently as October we had our debate on hunger. How seriously is all this meant? In the case of the Commission I would assume that it is meant seriously. The rates of increase for Title 9 are approximately as high as those for the budget as a whole. This does not means that greater importance is being attached to development aid, as the Commission feels, but nevertheless it at least keeps its share of the budget. Following the Council's reductions the rates of increase are far lower than for the budget as a whole, and the share of development and cooperation is reduced compared with total appropriations. This is, of course, a clear indication that words are something completely different from deeds. And for us, ladies and gentlemen, now comes the moment of truth. Are we going to correct this? What shall make we make of it? Tomorrow the voting takes place. Mr Cohen has already said that it is our duty to reinstate- not without criticism, but broadly speaking -what the Council has deleted from the Commission's proposals. But quite clearly efforts are required over and above this, particularly where food aid is concerned, we must ensure that we do not continue with a disporportionately small amount, which after many years of marking time will not be improved by a little appropriation, a small step forward: we must give a clear sign of our intentions.

In certain situations there are key decisions which either result in there being a leap forward, a change in quality, in·something really being set in motion, or which, if the opportunity is missed, place in a particularly bright spotlight what would then have to be recorded as mistakes and political imcompetence. I would even go so far as to say that food aid in 1980 in the form of cereals and rice represents the issue on which the European Parliament and the ~uropean Community as a whole must decide whether we are an introverted Community established for our own sake or whether we take seriously the task, the responsibility which we have assumed, world-wide. What is involved is a 50 % increase in food aid in the form of cereals and rice after many years in which the Council, the community has entered exactly the same appropriations. I realize this is a substantial increase, but this time we must do more than simply follow the Commission. It has been too modest, it has become resigned, it itself knows that its appropriations are not sufficient. The Committee on Budgets - unfortunately - has not lived up to its responsibility: it has only reinstated a sum just short of the Commission's proposal. We must succeed tomorrow during the voting in this House. My group- the Socialist Group - endorses the proposals of the Committee on Development and Cooperation. I appeal to the members of the other groups, do the same, otherwise we need not bother with further debate on hunger in the world in this House. I would be ashamed if we did not succeed in making this increase. I would be ashamed if I had to go home without achieving this.

22

Katharina Focke (D) emphasized the EEC's responsibilities with respect to the Third World. The Council has swept away the Commission's proposals at a time when more than ever the Community should inake some effort towards solidarity. (6.11.79).

Anne-Marie Lizin (B) dealt with energy problems, particularly nuclear safety aspects. (6.11.1979).

" ... a common policy on energy"

Mr President, colleagues, because the Parliament has so little leeway with regard to energy policy, as the previous speaker pointed out, my group intends to concentrate more particularly on what may be considered as less expensive policies in this area, policies which none the less could and should bear witness to the existence of a united European energy policy. And it is perhaps not to the entries in the budget that 1 should draw attention, but rather to the omissions, those things not included or inadequately covered. I am prompted in this by the desire that the policy should be both credible and effective.

Credibility, let it be said first of all, rests with the undecided question involved in the nuclear option and raised repeatedly in our budget, that of nuclear safety. The large country which so often sets us an example has recently demonstrated that from now on this will be its priority in the energy sector. We have not yet done the same.

And what is the Commission offering us in reality? Very gradual harmonization of certain standards and some coordination of researach. It has not granted itself any machinery which would give it access to systematic information and there are just one·or two officials working on the safety policy. It is quite clear that the committee of experts which has met only once since Harrisburg should, in May 1980, produce a substantial report and new proposals which will allow the Commission routine access to verifiable information which is quickly and regularly obtainable. It is credibility obtained at little cost which we wish to see for the Commission, credibility which will become political credibility.

There is also another aspect of this policy which the Commission has not developed -the security of nuclear installations sited at the border of one country with another. As a Belgian from Wallonia I feel myself personally affected by the construction of four nuclear power stations on the French border. These power stations will obviously contaminate a whole area, without the Commission being able to do anything about it. We must not allow this to be.

And, lastly, effectiveness. You no doubt heard the speech made by the Palestinian leader in Lisbon, the speech was entirely directed at Europe. We are the preferreed interlocuter on the problems of the Middle East and the problems in that area of the world. We hope that this role of interlocuter will not mean that the greatest pressure is brought te bear on us. If we do not respond to such demands quickly we shall soon be obliged to pay the price. We want to see not only money devoted to this energy policy, but political courage as well.

23

24

Anne-Marie Lizin' (B) condemned the Commission for its inadequate and timid policy, and the Council, which was still depriving the Commission policies of whatever substance they had. (26.9.79).

Energy

Coal policy was debated in Parliament in September 1979, on a resolution tabled by the Socialist Group, the EPP (European People's Party), the European Democrats (Conservatives), the Liberals and EPD (European Progressive Democrats) condemning the total failure of the policy applied by the Council of Ministers.

At a time when Europe was experiencing an energy supplies crisis, the European Parliament called on the Council t adopt the Commission's proposal on the use of coal in power stations and to earmark appropriations for research into alternative forms of energy and to standardize nuclear safety regulations.

"The Commission favours the nuclear option."

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have no intention of prolonging a debate which I hope will be pursued in greater detail when we come to discuss the energy options for 1990. Having said that, I should like to take this opportunity of reminding you of the Socialist Group's analysis of the energy policy pursued by the Council and the Commission.

The contributions of both Mr Davignon and the President-in-Office of the Council to this debate have demonstrated clearly enough exactly where the short-comings lie. On the one hand, we have a Commission pursuing an inadequate and timorous policy, and which lacks the courage to make the Council responsible. On the other hand, we have a Council which is at pains to remove what little substance there is in the Commission's policies. We heard the President-in-Office of the Council say just now that the Commission was going to modify or re-examine its proposals. We have heard the Commission say, on the other hand, that there is no question of its re-examining any of its proposals. What does the Council have to say to that? Is this debate going to run its course without producing any clear reply to this question?

More particularly, however, we are concerned with what has happened since the Tokyo Summit. A number of discussions have taken place within the Council, and today we have a meeting in Paris of the seven countries which were represented in Tokyo. It is a matter for regret that the Nine are not represented at that meeting in their own right. What does the Commission propose to do to ensure that it can enforce whatever commitments are entered into? No legal means of doing so has been proposed; nor is there any sign of, for instance, a draft directive. What does the Commission have to say on this point? Why does it not make use of the powers available to it!

The Socialist Group would like to point out that it attaches the greatest importance to the question of limiting consumption and imports. But this will require some kind of legal instrument, something which applies equally to the Member States and to those important outsiders to this debate, the oil companies. We believe that other steps will have to be taken as well, with the main emphasis being on energy-saving programmes. These must also be made binding on hesitant or dilatory countries like my own. Much more determined negotiations must take place with the automobile industry and the use of coal must be encouraged in oil-fired power stations. I shall not go over this point again, as it has already been dealt with at sufficient length in the course of this debate.

We must also draw attention to the Commission's and the Council's falings in their attempts to negotiate with the producer countries. The Council has drawn a blank, or more precisely -let the matter drop completely. All attempts to get a dialogue going have come to a standstill, and that can only be to everyone's disadvantage. What the Commission is proposing is an option which is dependent on nuclear energy. It has asked for a three-fold increase in Euratom's borrowing ceiling with the aim, according to the explanatory statement attached to its request to the Counci, of speeding up the Member States' nuclear programme. We Socialists regard the unequal treatment given here to the various sources of energy unacceptable. You cannot expect us to go along with a set of proposals providing for an accelerated nuclear programme, a piffling amount of money for energy savings, a reduction in expenditure on research into alternative energy sources, an oil policy which shrinks from adopting provisions for supervising the activities of both Member States. and oil companies and, lastly, the deletion of budgetary appropriations for a coal policy.

The Socialist Group feels that this imbalance has already reached unacceptable proportions, and this may make it impossible for us to accept the budget.

25

" ... guarantee lasting, adequate and cheap energy supplies"

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as outlined in its preamble, the oral question asked by Mr Muller-Hermann and others is based on the assumption that the securing of adequate long term energy supplies at reasonable cost is essential if the European Community is to maintain present living standards.

We agree with this of course, but we consider it, to say the least, urgent, that in the context of European cooperation the Member States of the EEC, which today are faced with their second oil crisis, once again, and once too often without being adequately prepared for it, should take steps not only to control the quantities of oil imported but also to regulate prices. On this initial decision to act in concert on the prices of imported oil will depend the European Community's ability to implement a comprehensive energy policy.

Between 1974 and 1978 the reaction of industrialized countries was twofold. First of all there was an increase in exports of manufactured products. A look at the terms of trade of OPEC countries reveals that these fell from the base of index 1 00 in 197 4 to 81 in 1978, i.e. a drop of 20% in five years. The second counterstroke has been the drop in the real price of imported oil owing to the depreciation of the dollar against the strong currencies. Thus, between January 1974 and December 1978, the Deutschmark price of imported oil dropped by 19%. Since the eruption of the Iranian crisis, the producer countries appear to want to be paid in real prices and not in falling currencies. In the economic climate a new element in international dealings lies in the fact that the monetary illusions of the OPEC countries have been dispelled. This will have serious consequences both for the countries of the European Community and for the United States. The countries of the European Community, which are less competitive economically than the United States, have to ensure that, in the international division of labour they do not end up being the major losers in a new industrial confrontation. Henceforth the free play of oil market forces will be very damaging for the importing countries. These forces favour the distribution of marginal supplies between the EEC countries, the consequences of which will be threefold:

Firstly, using escalating prices on the free market as a justification the producer countries will raise their official prices, their reasoning being that consumers can pay the price which they already pay for small quantities for all their supplies.

Secondly, the European Community will have exceded the oil import targets set for 1979.

Thirdly, deflation, unemployment, and the monetary crisis will be aggravated.

Consequently, in conjunction with a policy on import levels, we in the countries of the European Community must, firstly, introduce import price controls, secondly bring in consumer price controls to cut out market speculation, and thirdly, cooperate with the United States to control the consumer prices of oil products.

In our opinion, these are the most basic protective measures needed to ensure energy supplies to the European Economic Community.

26

In a similar debate on the use of coal in thermal power stations and energy supplies, Gisele Charzat (F) defined the safeguards to be adopted to ensure energy supplies for the Community (15.11.79).

Marie-Claude Vayssade (F) introduced a motion for a resolution tabled, by Charles Emioe Loo on the fires in the · mediterranean regions (28.9.79).

Environment

"Tackling all the forestry problems"

This summer, fires have devastated thousands of square miles in the Mediterranean region, in particular in the South of France, parts of Italy and Corsica. These are not the first such fires, but they are becoming more and more serious every year, since they often affect regions where the permanent population is diminishing, where tourism is developing and where full protective measures are no longer provided.

.What are we asking for today from the Community? Measures at three levels.

First of all, the character of these forest areas must be preserved. They must remain agricultural areas, non built-up areas. It is a question of the ecological balance in the region, soil conservation and the regulation of the water supply there. Forests must therefore be preserved; it is important for the way of life of the local people. I would also say that it is important for the development of tourism, and I think many people present in this House have already had an opportunity of visiting the area.

The measures required are of three kinds.

There would have to be preventive action: forest maintenance ar.ad clearing the undergrowth. This is a matter of urgency in areas where the population has shrunk so that the routine work of clearing the forest is no longer done. Measures must therefore be taken by France and Italy, but also at the European level, for the exploitation and maintenance of the Community's forests which do after all represent a valuable asset for the wh9le of the Community. In the French areas affected this summer more than 35% of the soil is under forest. It would therefore be a pity not to take measures in those areas to preserve these forests and enable them to be exploited.

Secondly, there must be means of fighting the fires when they break out, and these must be coordinated. The most effective solution is to have available the technical means of carrying the water by air, like the Canadair aircraft. Then it would be necessary to coordinate and expand considerably the means available to these regions for fighting the fires, which are now breaking out which distressing regularity.

Lastly, measures must be taken to repair the damage. I repeat: repair the damage, by re-afforestation, and not by changing the.nature of these regions. So there will have to be re-afforestation, if possible using a greater variety of species, which will reduce the risk of fire, bearing in mind that this is perhaps a new opportunity for some areas to exploit their timber and perhaps create new jobs.

We are therefore asking that the Community's projects resulting from the regulation of February 1979 for the Mediterranean forest area should be implemented quickly and if possible speeded up. We think there would have to be a programme covering the years 1979-1985 to allow all the forestry problems in these regions to be dealt with.

I ask you, Mr President, to inform the Commission of our views in order to enable measures which are already on the way for certains corners of the Mediterranean forest region to get off the ground as soon as possible. If I may, I would also suggest that the French authorities should perhaps redefine the areas concerned in view of what has happened this summer, in particular in the Bouches-du-RhOne.

27

A common air transport policy

In June 1978 the Council adopted a programme of work on a common air transport policy. This programme contains a number of priorities but these are not enough to form a real common policy. On the basis of an interim report by the chairman of the Committee on Transport, Horst Seefeld (D), Parliament stressed in its debates the importance of an air transport policy.

" ... a cut in prices"

Colleagues in all parts of the House have spoken of the various hurdles and anomalies which confront the unsuspecting air traveller in Europe. It was, in fact, another Member who informed me that it was, for example, possible to obtain air tickets to my various destinations at half the cost of the air faire quoted to me by travel agents, provided I knew the appropriate initials to whisper in their ears. There are indeed several ways of obtaining cheaper tickets if one has a travel agent ready to acquaint one with the various backdoor methods. These, however, do not apply, I am told, if one cannot fly directly to these destinations. From several regional airports - and several colleages have touched on this point- for example from my own regional airport, the Cardiff-Wales airport, there are no direct flights to any of these destinations and therefore no cheap fares - a great disincentive to those wishing to use their own regional airports. It is not surprising, then, that the already congested airports become even more unpleasant for passengers to use.

There are further disincentives for an expansion of flights from regional airports. For example, the charges levied by the UK Civil Aviation Authority on carriers using smaller regional airports are sometimes four times as high as those levied at the main airports. There should, I suggest, be some attempt to equalize those particular charges. Tomorrow the UK Civil Aviation Authority will be holding public hearings into applications by several independent airlines for new routes between more than 20 UK provincial centres and more than 60 Continental destinations. Without these independent airlines, many of us could not travel at all from our own regional airports. These applications are an attempt to obtain a breakthrough in cheaper air fares in Europe, an area where up to now progress unfortunately has been very slow. Some countries in Europe, Madam President, are undoubtedly dragging their feet, and this is where the Community should be able to press reluctant governments and reluctant airlines to speed up their action on cheaper fares and to provide more and better air services so that the traveller in Europe can be offered a fairer deal.

28

Ann Clwyd (UK) called for a reduction in prices and an improvement in air services (23.10.79).

They ask questions: Members of the European Parliament may put questions to the Commission, the Council of Ministers or the Foreign Ministers meeting in political cooperation, in the form of written questions, oral questions at question time or oral

Consumer Protection

Joyce Quin (UK)

Oral Question. Question time. Proposals to standardize bottles con­taining poisonous substances.

Will the Commission please confirm if it intends to make proposals to standardize bottles containing poisonous substances and, if this is the case, what provisions does it intend to make to ensure that such bottles are recognizable by blind or parti­ally sighted persons?

Answer On 18 September 1979, the Council adopted the Directive amending for the sixth time Council Directive 67 /548/EEC concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. On this occasion, the Council called on the Commission to draw up at the earliest opportunity proposals for harmonization, pursuant to Article 15(3) concerning child­proof safety closures and warnings for the visually handicapped. The Commission intends to implement these harmonization measures with all speed. Consequently the Commission has started the work necessary for the pre­paration of proposals on the subject; the Commission cannot provide any informa­tion on the measures it will propose be­fore making a thorough study of the sub­ject and having the appropriate consulta­tions.

questions with or without debate during part-sessions.

Since the direct election of Parliament, very many questions have been put on a wide variety of subjects and problems.

Family policy

Franc;oise Gaspard (F)

Written Question. Harmonization of laws on surnames.

A Franco-German couple living in France who were married in Germany under re­cent German legislation have encoun­tered unprecedented administrative prob­lems in France. Is the Commission aware that couples marrying in Germany may elect to take either the husband's or the wife's sur­name? Is the Commission aware that it is practi­cally impossible for a couple lawfully mar­ried in the Federal Republic of Germany and having lawfully adopted the wife's surname to move to other Member States of the Community? Does the Commission find it acceptable that the free choice of surname, which is meant to be an advantage but is recog­nized only by the Member State granting it, can become a handicap for nationals of that country when living in other Member States of the European community? Does not the Commission agree that is would be desirable to promote the free movement of married couples in Europe by recommending the harmonization of legislation on surnames, on the basis of the best existing system?

Environment

Beata Weber (D)

Written Question. Information for the Commission on proJected environmental protection measures.

The Agreement of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting in Council on information for the Commission on projected environmental protection measures 1 states that "the Commission shall be informed" by the Member States "of any draft legislative, regulatory or administrative measures and of any international initiative concern­ing the protection or improvement of the environment".

The notified legislative, regulatory and administrative measures are not adopted if, within two months, the Commission no­tifies its intention to submit proposals to the Council; the Commission then has five months to draw up the proposal and the Council has a further five months to reach a decision. Will the Commission state: 1. the number of notifications since 1st January 1978, by country, 2. th~ subjects of the notifications (sub­jects of regulations), 3. the number of cases in which the Agreement referred to above has fulfilled its function as a standstill agreement.

29

l

1.

!~

·1

:: ; .

·;-,-~

30

Energy

Yvette Roudy (F)

Written Question. Criteria for the fast breeder option. With reference to Parliament's resolution on the Commission's communication concerning the fast breeder option for the Community, the Commission is requested to answer the following questions:

1. Given that the French atomic energy centres did not order the fast breeder Su­per Phenix until three years after the construction of the' Phenix breeder reac­tor, why have the British atomic energy authorities still not decided to build the CRF1 fast breeder despite the fact that the PRF breeder reactor was put into ser­vice in 1975?

2. Why have the British atomic energy authorities decided to site the PRF in the North of Scotland whereas in France the Super Phenix is being built at Greys-Mal­ville in the RhOna-Alps region a,nd in Ger­many the SNR 300 is being built in the Kalkar region?

3. Does not the Commission feel that given the technical and safety problems involved these prototypes should be built far away from heavily populated areas and that the development processes of this type of reactor should be based on safety and technical criteria rather than on national commercial advantage?

4. Does not the Commission feel that after an appropriate report has been drawn up by the authorities responsible for technical and safety matters the cho­ice of site for such installations should be referred to the people living in the area for their approval?

Regional Policy

Eileen Desmond (IRL)

Written Questions. Aids to Munster from the European In­vestment Bank. What projects have been aided by the EIB since 1973, in the following counties: Waterford, Cork, Kerry, Clare, Limerick and Tipperary.

Grants from the Social Fund for pro­jects In Munster. Can the Commission give details relating to the number of projects aided by the Social fund, the nature of the projects and the amounts granted for the following counties in Munster: Waterford, Cork, Kerry, Clare, Limerick and Tipperary, since 1973, and also details of any appli­cations pending?

Aid granted under the Regional Fund for Munster. Can the Commission give details of grants from the Regional Fund, made since those published for the second half of 1977, and also details of any applica­tions pending, for the following counties: Waterford, Cork, Kerry, Clare, Limerick and Tipperary?

Agricultural policy

Luise Herklotz (D)

Written Question. Economies In agricultural expenditure In the Community budget. According to my information, every year 170,000 tonnes of butter for the confec­tionery and ice cream trade are subsi­dized through Community funds. This butter is initially stored for six months be­fore being sold to the industry at reduced price. This involves substantial storage costs. If the same quantities were delivered di­rectly from the producer to the user in the form of milk, cream, powdered milk, fresh butter, raw butter or condensed milk, con­siderable savings could be made in the Community budget. Since proof of processing must be pro­vided by the manufacturer, this procedure would not be open to abuse. What measures does the Commission propose to take to simplify the levy sys­tem in the manner described and so re­lieve the Community budget of the burden of unjustified expenditure?

Public Health

Yvette Fuillet (F)

Written Question. Harmonization of the laws of the Mem­ber States. The present disparity between the various national laws in this field poses serious problems, from the point of view both of women's rights - which should be incor­porated into the declaration of human rights- and of the equality of women in Europe. (How can the differences in treatment of, say, an Irish and a French woman be considered acceptable?) Does the Commission therefore intend to draw up a proposal for a directive to har­monize existing legislation?

31

Belgium

Anne-Marie Lizin Member of the Committee on Energy and · Research Member of the ad hoc Committee on Women's Rights

Denmark

Eva Gredal Member of the Political Affairs Committee Member of the Bureau of the Socialist Group

Mette Groes Member of the Committee on Energy and Research Member of the ad hoc Committee on Women's Rights

Germany

Katharina Focke Member of the Committee on Development and Cooperation

Luisa Herklotz Member of the Committee on Agriculture Auditor of the Socialist Group of the European Parliament

Magdalena Hoff Member of the Committee on Budgets Member of the ad hoc Committee on Women's Rights, Group coordinator Heinke Salisch Member of the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment Substitute member of the ad hoc Committee on Women's Rights Socialist Group coordinator for this committee

Lilo Seibel-Emmerling Member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection Socialist Group coordinator for this committee

Beata Weber Vice-chairman of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection of the European Parliament Member of the ad hoc Committee an Women's rights

Heidi Wieczorek-Zeul Vice-chairman of the Committee on External Economic Relations Member of the ad hoc Committee on the Rights of Women

32

France

Gisela Charzat Member of the Committee on Energy and Research

Edith Cresson Member of the Committee on Agriculture

Fran~oise Gaspard Member of the Committee on Budgets Substitute member of the ad hoc Committee on Women's Rights

Yvette Roudy Member of the Committee on the environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection Chairman of the ad hoc Committee on Women's rights

Marie-Claude Vayssade Vice-chairman of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Petitions Substitute member of the ad hoc Committee on Women's Rights

Yvette Fuillet Member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection Member of the ad hoc Committee on Women's Rights

Netherlands

Annie Krouwei-VIam Member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection Substitute member of the ad hoc Committee on Women's rights

len van den Heuvel Member of the Political Affairs Committee Member of the ad hoc Committee on Women's rights Vice-chairman of the Socialist Group of the European Parliament

Phili Viehoff Member of the Committee on Youth, Culture, Education, Information and Sport.

Ireland

Eileet Desmond Vice-chairman of the Committee on Regional Policy and Regional Planning

United Kingdom

Janey Buchan Member of the Committee on Youth, Culture, Education, Information and Sport

Barbara Castle Member of the Committee on Agriculture Vice-chairman of the Socialist Group of the European Parliament

Ann Clwyd Member of the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment Member of the Bureau of the Socialist Group of the European Parliament

Joyce Quin Member of the Committee on Agriculture

Publisher: Ernest Glinne Editor: Raymonde Dury 3, Bd de I'Empereur, 1000 Brussels Tel.: 513.40.701511.95.95 Telex: 24 541 Printed by Nevada, Brussels